Heart Rate Question (Read 1152 times)

Scout7

CPT Curmudgeon

posted: 4/13/2007 at 12:37 PM

I'm pretty sure you can manually set your zones with Garmin. If that affects the graphing part, I don't know, since I don't look at that part of it.
Anyway, using zones based on a field test and not a formula is more for determining training.

Interesting measurement errors here. I can't help commenting on this since Jeff asked in another thread about elevation considerations in Garmin distance calculations.
So your elevation started at 615ft and varied between a max of about 630ft to a min of about 520ft. I'm wondering if your location (x,y coordinates) varied by more or less than your elevation (your z coordinate). +/- 55ft error isn't bad for satellites 12,000 miles away.
BTW, If you're all wondering if I can get any geekier, the answer is yes.

Interesting measurement errors here. I can't help commenting on this since Jeff asked in another thread about elevation considerations in Garmin distance calculations.
So your elevation started at 615ft and varied between a max of about 630ft to a min of about 520ft. I'm wondering if your location (x,y coordinates) varied by more or less than your elevation (your z coordinate). +/- 55ft error isn't bad for satellites 12,000 miles away.
BTW, If you're all wondering if I can get any geekier, the answer is yes.

If you're talking about the second chart, my X, Y, and Z coordinates did not change from minute 2:00 onward, as I was laying on the couch.

When it’s all said and done, will you have said more than you’ve done?

I'm pretty sure you can manually set your zones with Garmin. If that affects the graphing part, I don't know, since I don't look at that part of it.
Anyway, using zones based on a field test and not a formula is more for determining training.

Yes, Scout, you're right on this. After I tested my RHR and calculated the HR zones, I set up the custom zones in the Garmin. The other option is Based on Max - which uses Garmin's calculations to figure out the zones. I tested with the same 8ish mile workout as in the first graph in this thread and it (properly) changes the zones drawn on the charts (original data remaining the same, of course).
Oh yeah, and thanks for the link on training intensity - it helped me better understand your explanation of how to test for the LT in your first reply in this thread.

When it’s all said and done, will you have said more than you’ve done?

If you're talking about the second chart, my X, Y, and Z coordinates did not change from minute 2:00 onward, as I was laying on the couch.

Both you and I know you were in a single location but the Garmin measurements show you couch surfing up and down "hills" the whole time. This indicates errors in the measuring device. I was just wondering if the X and Y measurements were also fluctuating (almost certainly) and to the same degree as the Z measurement.

Both you and I know you were in a single location but the Garmin measurements show you couch surfing up and down "hills" the whole time. This indicates errors in the measuring device. I was just wondering if the X and Y measurements were also fluctuating (almost certainly) and to the same degree as the Z measurement.

Although I am a fan of the Forerunner, it is notoriously bad at recording elevation changes. So much so that the Motion Based website has a built-in feature for automatically correcting the data.

Although I am a fan of the Forerunner, it is notoriously bad at recording elevation changes. So much so that the Motion Based website has a built-in feature for automatically correcting the data.

Simple satellite geometry problem...they need to be able to get signals from satellites all around the earth to get good vertical position (wouldn't that be great, no need for line of sight if they ever figured out a better signal transfer method ). I take it the the website correction will probably use several local ground control points to get elevation.

nemo1

posted: 4/23/2007 at 12:53 PM

OKay, this is a little off topic. But...
I have been wanting a heart rate monitor for a while. I actually bought one, but it didn't connect to your chest, you were just supposed to do a thumb/index read on the watch. It doesn't work very well. It works great as a stop watch, but not much more than that.
So, I was wondering a couple of things:
What is the best *cheap* heart rate monitor? and
Does anyone have a retired heart rate monitor they would like to sell for a reasonable price?

... I have been wanting a heart rate monitor for a while. I actually bought one, but it didn't connect to your chest, you were just supposed to do a thumb/index read on the watch. It doesn't work very well. It works great as a stop watch, but not much more than that.
So, I was wondering a couple of things:
What is the best *cheap* heart rate monitor? ...

Chest strap is the way to go IMHO. Works great and you can't even tell it's there after a while.
I went with a Sigma Sport Fit Watch for about $70 since it had some "must-have" features (at least for me): user-replacable batteries in the chest strap, user programmable target zones, and memory slots for storing workouts. It has other things I don't really use and is missing a few things I'd like (e.g., PC interface) but its been very reliable and I haven't had to change the chest strap battery yet (since Jan07 when I got it).
If I had to do it now, I'd probably go for the one of the Sigma Sports Onyx Series now as it can record HR for interval training and has some workout types that I see myself doing.
Lot's of other alternatives exist. Polar makes a *very* wide range of HRMs varying in features/price but I don't think any of them have user replaceable batteries. Timex also makes somes inexpensive models. And then there's the Garmins which are the holy grail of data collection, gathering distance, pace, HR, elevation, weather, phase-of-moon (just kidding on that last one) and transfering it all to your PC. Sometimes you can catch the older Garmin models on sale.
It all depends more on what you want to get out of a HRM. I needed a few more numbers to track than the least expensive models gave, but less than a full-bore all-out gargoyle Garmin system.

I tried different tests and formulas to fix my MAX HR and I always end up with training zones that don't make sense because it's always too low and then no matter how easy the run, my garmin says I'm at 80-90% of my MAX HR, which is not possible (I could never run 2 hours at that level!).
Then I found this site:
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/hrm1.htm
It uses what they call the WORKING HEART RATE (which is a combination of the resting heart rate and the MAX heart rate) to fix training zones. It might not work for everyone but for me it definitely makes a lot more sense now!
You can then manually set your Garmin zones with these new numbers.
Claudia

2nd Half-marathon on June 9th... Hope to beat my first time of 2:07:04!!!

I tried different tests and formulas to fix my MAX HR and I always end up with training zones that don't make sense because it's always too low and then no matter how easy the run, my garmin says I'm at 80-90% of my MAX HR, which is not possible (I could never run 2 hours at that level!).
Then I found this site:
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/hrm1.htm
It uses what they call the WORKING HEART RATE (which is a combination of the resting heart rate and the MAX heart rate) to fix training zones. It might not work for everyone but for me it definitely makes a lot more sense now!
You can then manually set your Garmin zones with these new numbers.
Claudia

Thanks, Claudia. That's the same site and technique that I ended up going with for the zones.

When it’s all said and done, will you have said more than you’ve done?